Given what we know about left leaning groups faking right wing events (Terry McCauliffe hiring tiki torch bearing men to show up at Glenn Youngkins events and the SPLC sponsoring hate groups) don’t think the Patriot Front March was real?
Looks a lot like a staged event.
I know we're all focused on the right as our main concern currently but I was curious to ask do you think the far-left is going to be a problem for us in the future?
It feels like liberalism is rapidly decreasing in popularity and most young people these days are either MAGA or socialists.
Every time an extremist group on either side of the political aisle does something, people left and right claim “false flag” or “agents!” This can be seen with Patriot Front and Antifa pretty regularly. To me this kind of just demonstrates the divide in our country that we can’t fathom there actually being these extremist groups. I personally do believe extremists exist on both sides and don’t necessarily believe the government is sewing division in this way. I do fully believe the current admin is sewing division though.
Title
Some people ive known my whole life are suddenly into everything trump does, Ive known them as kind people but I don't know how they can support such a monster
Dosnt matter what facts I give to them that trump is a madman hurting others, they eaither deny it or say something like i dont support that part but other things are good..but they can really give examples of what is "good" according to them
I’ve seen several hypothetical scenarios on this sub lately that are far fetched. What’s the point of these hypothetical scenarios?
I’ll throw in cultural changes as well even though that’s not really a policy thing. And for both answers, they should both be issues you feel strongly about
(assuming the GOP doesn't act like the GOP, blocking every Dem nominee)
I'm not just talking about the DC spectacle but also the celebrations and promotions close to were you live.
Based on my own personal experience this 4th of July felt like a let down and a below average overall celebration when compared to a usual standard 4th of July celebration where I live.
Even the illegal fireworks weren't as loud and frequent as previous years.
Was your experience different?
One thing I can't stand is playing the victim, especially when you're the one in power or are the abuser. What is the psychological reason for MAGA constantly acting like the world is out to get them when they're the ones in charge?
I read about the Patriot Front losers in DC, and naturally MAGA was saying it was Feds, it was ANTIFA, the Democrats are the party of the KKK, etc anything but disavow them. If i was MAGA, I'd simply own that I accept or tolerate them in my movement or leave. Boom, done? Why is that impossible for the average MAGA?
I genuinely don't get it. They must see it, right?
A Haven brand golf polo was accidentally delivered to my house. It is patterned with 45 47 for Trump’s presidencies 🙄 It feels wasteful to throw it away but I also don’t want to donate it and have others wearing it. What should I do with it?
I see a lot of people act like a wealth tax is the only meaningful tax to place on the rich. For example, people say that gavin newsom doesnt want to tax the rich, just ignoring the existing income taxes california has.
So with that, would you lower income taxes if you institute a wealth tax?
TLDR: Trying to figure out where my positions map on the left-right spectrum, and looking for liberal feedback. Full disclosure, I posted a version of this in AskConservatives as well to compare reactions.
With the 250th coming and going, I decided to take stock of my current political positions and see where they land. What I've discovered is that I don't think they map cleanly left-right, despite identifying as a progressive.
The underlying principle for every position is that it traces back to reciprocal obligation and accountability. Citizens, institutions, and capital all owe each other things, and most of our dysfunction is these deals being enforced on one side only.
Where I could use liberal views:
- Does framing politics around "obligation" sound too much like bootstraps talk to you, or is there a left version of it?
- Which of the positions below would get me labeled a conservative in this space?
- And what obligation would you say our own side refuses to enforce?
---------- If you're interested, here is the general framework applied to a few specific topic areas ----------
- Service: I spent 7 years in the Army. The GI Bill and VA loan got me an education and a house by 31. Service earned that support, and the deal worked well for me. I'd extend it through voluntary national service with real benefits. Modeling post-service support off something like the VA would help recruit people from all over the country to work together toward moving the country forward.
- Housing and family: I've found myself to be the exception, not the rule. For many in my cohort, the post-WW2 version of this societal deal, work hard and you can afford a family, is broken. I don't think that's a culture problem. It's a broken unspoken contract between generations of Americans.
- Capital: Through my MBA I've come to the conclusion that lower taxes on investment income only make sense if the gains get reinvested. Stock buybacks and hoarding break the deal that justified the preferential tax treatment in the first place.
- Public officials: We've seen plenty of corruption this century from both parties. Cooling-off periods between public and private employment are necessary. They regulated an industry, they shouldn't get to cash out with them the next year.
- The party: I think this one cuts at us specifically. Party leadership owes voters material representation, not poll-tested platutudes. When the establishment stops delivering on economics, primary challenges should not viewed as disloyalty. It is the base using there only enforcement mechanism.
- War powers: This crystallized for me during both the Obama years and Trump's second term. Congress owes the country a vote before a war, and leaders owe the troops a plan. I'd be in favor of stripping the executive of most of its war-making powers, with obvious exceptions for emergencies.
- Immigration: I can't stand the cruelty of the current approach, especially when more effective methods exist. I'd support enforcement at the employer level with E-Verify. Companies owe rule-following the same as workers do. This isn't a call to end deportations, it's saying there are two sides to enforcement and only one is being addressed (and frankly cruelly)
- Firearms: Pro-2A, but I think training and competence need to be part of the deal. To be clear, I 100% support your right and mine to own and bear arms. Liberty, I think, requires obligations attached in order for that same liberty to be lasting.
An example that captures an attitude I hear a lot, that feminism has been so successful that women have it too good as men are suffering from gender roles:
>The overwhelming majority of men have no problem with gender equality if it was consistent. When you talk to young men, their experience of equality is that at school, at work, and at in the economy, women demand equality. But in social settings, women refuse gender roles that do not benefit them while ruthlessly shaming and attacking men who do not conform to the gender roles that benefit women. Liberals say that there is no problem here. Conservatives say that there is, and in this the conservatives are right.
See also the blame that feminism gets for the "male loneliness epidemic" etc, and this is why men have shifted to the right.
I don't know if these young men are correct in the claim that "feminism has gone too far" in interpersonal relationships, and now women are oppressing men rather than the other way around in social dynamics (I suspect they are not). But setting that aside, what do they want the government and politicians to be doing about it? I can't think of any political levers you could move to change social expectations. It's not like we could pass a "ban the expectation that men pay for dates" law or something that would win these guys back?
Some say AI companies are an unnatural monopoly
I have participated in this forum for some time and have engaged with a lot of members on both sides of the big tent (and even outside, thanks to our conservative and socialist visitors), from those on the Center to those who support the DSA. But I'm noticing a tangible shift in outright hostility against the DSA. When I recently tried to get an answer as to why, I was given the answer "the DSA is a bigger threat than MAGA. They must be cut out like a cancer."
This is clearly hyperbole. Mamdani is looked at like a lightning rod, but at the federal level their power is in Bernie Sanders and a few House representatives. The state level, some moderate success in New York, and a few scattered state officials, city councils, and council members around America. The reach of the DSA's political power comes in small grassroots movements, especially because they refuse corporate campaign donations. MAGA, on the other hand, controls the presidency, congress, supreme court, the media, and the donations network that supports them. MAGA has, and continues, to scale back our civil rights practically day-by-day through Trump's abuse of power. Surely this can't be everyone's opinion. So, I must ask.
Do you see the DSA as a long-term threat, liability, or risk? If so, why? And is this threat/etc. to the Democratic party, or the entire country in general?
Full cards on the table: no, I do not identify with the DSA. I favor pragmatism and working within a 'big tent' framework. 'Vote blue no matter who.' I'm just bewildered to see so many Democrats are saying 'vote blue no matter who, unless it's the DSA'.
I want to be believe it is possible but I worry that the day I see the centre as having the edge something else has gone terribly wrong.
We can’t have nice things, remember?
I see tons of people online say democrats arent doing anything, calling them "do nothing" democrats. On twitter, people were even saying cosponsoring the medicare for all bill isnt even "doing anything" cause it didnt get passed.
So what does "doing something" look like in your opinion? What do the newcomers to congress (hamawy, rabb, chevalier, valdez, lander, kiros) need to do, in order to be considered "doing something"? Is it just zingers on social media? If the practical outcome is that a specific bill still isnt passed, does that mean they actuslly did something?
edit: im specifucally asking about leguslators, not executives.
From an American perspective, Iranian nuclear weapons are usually framed as a threat. But I’m wondering how this looks from inside Iran. If your country had been sanctioned, threatened, surrounded by hostile powers, and treated as a secondary actor in a region where some states already have nuclear protection or backing, would you see nuclear weapons as dangerous escalation, or as a way to guarantee sovereignty?
I’m not asking whether the Iranian regime is good. I’m asking whether nuclear weapons can look materially rational from the perspective of a weaker state trying to avoid domination.
From my perspective, it seems at least understandable why the Iranian state would see nuclear capability as rational deterrence, and why some citizens might view it as a guarantee of sovereignty rather than simple aggression.